Mayor Tom Martin listens to the early city election results in his home office Saturday, May 12, 2012. The early results revealed he was far behind his opponent Glen Robertson in the race for Mayor of Lubbock. (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Stephen Spillman)

Mayor Tom Martin sits in his home office with is wife, Karen, and dog, Max, after learning early city election results Saturday. The early results revealed he was far behind his opponent, Glen Robertson, in the race for mayor of Lubbock.

Mayor Tom Martin walks inside his house with his wife Karen after speaking to local TV about the early city election results Saturday, May 12, 2012. The early results revealed he was far behind his opponent Glen Robertson in the race for Mayor of Lubbock. (Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Stephen Spillman)

With major street improvements in the works, Lubbock’s water supply seemingly secured for decades and relatively low unemployment in a growing city, Tom Martin seemed to have a convincing argument for a third term as Lubbock mayor.

But nobody, certainly not Martin or his opponent Glen Robertson, expected the 65 percent to 35 percent voter call for change in leadership in Lubbock City Hall in the May 12 municipal elections.

Lubbock’s new mayor, Lubbock leaders and voters said there wasn’t any one thing to trigger the landslide, but Robertson’s compelling campaign and dissatisfaction with city government didn’t help the incumbent.

Building to 2012

Martin’s familiarity with Lubbock city government went back decades to when he served as spokesman for the city during the deadly tornado of 1970.

He left the Hub City to pursue a career in law enforcement, but returned as a retired police chief from San Marcos and Grapevine to serve on the Lubbock City Council in the early 2000s.

Following a defeat to David Miller in the 2006 mayoral election, Martin would return to City Hall in a couple of years.

In 2008, Martin beat incumbent Miller, in a 58- to 37-percent rematch.

Voters put Martin back in office in 2010, giving him nearly 69 percent of the vote in a four-man race. His nearest challenger was a Texas Tech student who won about 20 percent of votes cast.

Midway through his second term, Martin made clear he intended to seek a third term.

Robertson, the owner of Hillcrest Country Club and Robertson Bonded Warehouse, had his own aspirations for political office.

He served as an alderman and mayor-pro tem in Ransom Canyon in the 2000s, narrowly lost a 2010 bid for Lubbock’s District 1 City Council seat and has served on such appointed bodies as Lubbock Electric Utility Board.

Despite Martin’s past successes, Robertson would give the mayor his first real election challenge since Miller.

Landslide

Robertson said he was optimistic going in to Election Day, but admitted he was surprised by the results.

“The 65-35 blew us out,” he said. “We just couldn’t believe it. It shocked me to no end.”

Robertson said the public’s perception of its city government played to his advantage.

“I think the public felt like they’d been shut out of their local politics,” Robertson said. “It’s hard to get in front of the City Council because of the time of day you have to do it.”

He added: “I think that’s one of the new council’s jobs is going to be to try to rebuild the trust and faith and the confidence of the public.”

Martin did not return phone messages seeking comment for this story.

But in an Election Day interview with The Avalanche-Journal, then-Mayor Martin expressed puzzlement with the election results.

“The voters obviously want to go a different direction, not sure what it is, but they want to go a different direction,” Martin said.

Looking back at the campaign, Martin said there wasn’t anything he would have done differently.

Tepper said he believed the victory came down to perception as much as what Robertson did right and not necessarily what Martin did wrong.

“I think it came down to the voters being angry that their bills were going up, that there was a threat to their service in the Health Department,” he said, alluding to an ongoing debate about the city’s role in funding a Health Department. “They took out their annoyance at the mayor.”

Former Lubbock Mayor Marc McDougal said he believes Martin fell prey to public perception, a strong argument from a compelling contender and anti-incumbent attitudes.

McDougal, who served on Lubbock’s city council in the ‘90s before serving two mayoral terms from 2002 to 2006, said incumbents used to have a 10- to 15-point advantage going into a race.

“But I think anymore, regardless of who you are, you’ve got at least a 10-point disadvantage going in to an election just from the anti-incumbency sentiment that has started the last four years,” McDougal said of a trend he believes transcends local, state and national politics.

Winning strategies

McDougal said Robertson’s personality, business background and message criticizing the city’s $1 billion debt and condemning what he called hidden taxes in utility bills resounded with voters.

“I think that, coupled with Glen being a good guy, a well-respected businessman, was just a perfect storm of situations,” McDougal said.

Robertson said he could pinpoint strategies that likely helped his campaign.

“I think the one thing I did and I did right was I talked about issues and solutions,” Robertson said. “If the mayor made a mistake, or if his campaign made a mistake, in my opinion, it was he went in what the public perceived as down negative very early, and I don’t think that works in West Texas.”

He said a positive campaign and picking an issue that affects everyone, their utility bills, resonated with voters.

“Those two factors combined are what really cemented people on my side,” he said. “We truly crossed all the demographics of this city, which I think is a great deal because the mayor’s job is to represent every citizen of this city.”

Lubbockites at an Arnett Benson Neighborhood Association meeting days after the election agreed.

Noe and Esther DeLeon said Robertson’s message against hidden taxes in LP&L fees resounded with them when they cast their ballots for the challenger.

Ofelia Hinojosa said she was swayed by Robertson’s message on utility fees and openness in government.

She added the businessman evoked confidence in her when she saw him speak at public events.

“I had confidence knowing he could do well,” Hinojosa said.

Joe Riojas, president of the neighborhood association, said he and other voters in his neighborhood were turned off by Martin, and what they perceived as his ignoring their District 1 neighborhood, just as much as they were encouraged by Robertson’s reformist message.

“Mayor Martin made it very clear to our community how we’re not as important as the rest of the city,” Riojas said.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

No, it isn't new news now. The main thing to consider is the low turnout. If 20% had voted instead of the reported 9% I think it would have been much different. Most everyone thought Martin was a shoe in and didn't bother to vote. Plain and simple. You get what you don't bother to vote for, or against. Now listen to all the naysayers start in complaining. If you encounter someone making noise ask them if they voted...

I don't know Mr.Glen Robertson,but I have met Mr.Tom Martin a couple of times. And have heard him on the radio many times. And I would vote for him in a heartbeat, simply because I am an old man,not wealthy, nothing that would impress anybody,just plain vanilla! But a couple of times I have run into him and he has shook my hand and talked to me as if he knew exactly who I was. And that means to me that he is one of the last remaining individuals in this world that has good character and respect for his fellow man. A politician will do the same thing,but there is a telling difference.

Again, and I support it, such tragically low voter turnout should "hang" an election until a pre-determined number of people voted. When politicians have to remain in office until sufficient votes are cast, and the Election Commission changes the voting process so more people can vote we will have more capable candidates. There is certainly no glory for anyone elected in this last election, none at all. I'd feel wholly dis-favored, frankly.

Robertson used wordsmithing that attracted voters, yet of little substance – voter Tomfoolery – because a mayor may not make such changes, any more than a president can change the Income Tax code (as some candidates are saying they "would do"). Nothing other than by Executive Order may be done without the House and Senate approving it. Mayors, Governors, Presidents are merely CEOs with two practical responsibilites: serve their boards (council members, House & Senate members) and serve the community.

The ongoing lack of excellent in political office will continue until the election process is changed and voting become more accessible to all. At the very least, the money spent on signage that is still defacing our environment, and the negative timbre accompanying campaigns must be stopped.

Lubbock County could have easily built a homeless shelter or greatly endowned a reseach project instead of the cost of this last election.

Looks like the ex emperor and his ilk are still upset about the election results. If those who did not vote had, the result would have been the same, a stunning victory for Robertson. Get over it Tom, you messed up by establishing the monopoly and spending like there's no tomorrow, not to mention that ostentatious air about you!

How much more accessible does it need to be? I'm not being antagonistic, just an honest question. We now have early voting where anyone can vote just about anywhere, for 12 hours a day for a week or so. (Unless you have an aversion to going to United) The new voting machines in Lubbock County are such that we can have the "super precincts" even on election day. If you have your voter registration card you don't even need any ID to vote. Being handicapped or unable to understand the operation of these machines is no excuse. My 86 year old mother, who is completely computer illiterate and can't see worth a darn, did it with a little help from the election judges. She doesn't live in the city but she voted the other day in the primary that followed the city elections.

As I stated in my previous comment, voter apathy is rampant in Lubbock. What I don't know is where the roots are. Is it ethnic? I suspect that's part of it. Historically the minorities often don't vote. That still leaves a bunch of other folks who didn't bother. Requiring people to vote isn't the answer either. I would rather have a small group of informed voters than a large group who vote on a whim.

There are those who say this is normal in the history of the world. Freedom is what we deem it to be. The ones who say "my vote doesn't count anyway" are going to find out that it's true, if they don't vote to start with.

Perhaps we interpreted Pappion's comment differently. In our society today, people are dealing with lost jobs, single-parent homes, men who will not take responsibility for their off-spring, childcare time mandates (picking children up by a certain time or be fined $/minute), transportation access and costs with cuts in funding to that, and more. If voting were allowed in our large companies, it would increase voter turnout.

How does a parent vote after work when transportation may be needed, or a child or children must be picked up at day-care or pay fines of $$$/minute, or get to grocery stores after hours much less find one that doesn't have higher prices because they are not in a chain, in the suburbs or rural areas? If we wanted to make voting easier on the public, we would evidence inclusion. Voting in the workplace or at 7-11s (which was attempted back in Governor Richards' term) would send a clear message that "we want everyone to vote" and we would see more votes cast. And, one day is simply not enough for our population in 2012. Frankly, 7-11s could house a device for citizens to input many requests, needs (instead of having to spend hours trying to get information or help from 2-1-1), and vote!

Apathy follows on the heels of fatigue and/or depression with lost self-esteem and very real feelings of being outside the circles of influence in society. Few people understand how important their votes are because the election information is all about how to and where to not “you, too!”

Voter apathy occurs with the pressures on families today—threats of job loss, housing losses, health care coverage being removed, banks closing and abusing investors, war, candidates childish ads on every communication device possible for months and months, demeaning themselves in the process. It all contributes to "voter apathy" not ethnicity as you inferred. Statewide instead of using the “Rainy Day Fund” cuts made in education, ongoing threats against health care coverage, ending Social Security, controlling women's health options, housing needs and locations, and much, much more that indeed send a very clear message about access to community itself.

I challenge our leadership in the City of Lubbock to just try this: Invite the community to participate in a survey to determine what people need to vote, and let them respond at school, work, grocery and big box stores, at 7-11s, on the TTU and other college campuses, and see what that turnout is. We have to face the fact, we don't want a great voter turnout because those not voting are the greatest number of voters - the middle and lower class, minorities, and/or those who complain the loudest and don't vote, ever. We cannot be regarded as elected if we have not been chosen by the people.

There are so many opportunities to vote. The only way it could be made easier is if someone came to their place of work or business with a ballot.

As far as Mr Martin not winning reelection. I've also met Mr Martin more then a few times and I don't share your opinion as to his demeanor. In my opinion Mr Martin is a bully and I'm glad he's no longer the mayor.

Poor voter turnout. I think this is an example of how fed up people were with Mr Martin at the city government. I completely disagree with the thought people didn't have the opportunity to vote. These two things are why it was a landslide victory for Mr Robertson.

For me the next step is to vote Mr Bean out. Mr Bean is nothing more then a Martin puppet. With Mr Bean out Mr Martn's influence should be completely gone.

My hope is things change. I understand the cost of goods and services has risen. My problem is don't hide these costs in fees which equal hidden taxes and then lie to me about what they aren't. That itself is very insulting and is part of why Mr Martin lost so overwhelmingly.

Did you know that roughly triple the number voters turned out for the vote on making Lubbock "wet" than they did for this mayoral election? The apathy on the part of public regarding the cluster-f!@k that is our city government is well deserved.

I heard that Martin didn't take losing well. He did not stay for the swearing in of Robertson and took his portrait, which was hanging in city hall, down. If this is true, what a sore loser he is. It is indicative of his pompous attitude.

I wonder if my neighbors in District 4 will show up for the Lubbock City Council Run-Off Election on June 23? Sure hope we won't be embarrassed. At least we will have early voting June 11 to 19 at a couple of the area United grocery stores. Voter turn out will be an especially tough challenge in the MIDDLE OF SUMMER. But we need 50% plus 1 for a victory no matter what. I say let's finish the job and vote for Jim Gerlt to represent us Downtown. Say no more, Mr. Beane.

There was no offense intended, or personal dissatisfaction with the election outcome by this commenter, in relation to this article. Of concern is the voting process itself and that we, as a populace, are accepting more and more manipulation and lack of respect however benignly intended. Voter apathy is dangerous for any nation. Our people don't deserve it, nor do those running for office. Working together, these issues can and must be addressed.

Billroy's point is well-taken; however, we must be careful in interpreting numbers. In the case of the vote for a "wet" county, there was a long period of publicity, direct contact with voters in public locations pro and con, 24/7 for months before that election. Inclusion was evident - votes were wanted, and the reason was explained on a 1:1 basis - that's inclusion. Giving people an opportunity to be included will produce results; it is respectful.

Too many times over the past 10 years I have heard "It doesn't pay to vote - they determined that ahead of time," feelings grounded in reality or not, it threatens Democracy. Sometimes reference is made to the tragic Florida debacle, others wonder how Perry gets re-elected, or an upstart is elected, or the elected rise higher and higher in personal assets once they are elected, etc.; all of which indicates a serious doubt about our elections – a red flag for our future.

The candidates appear to be without a clue as to what constiutes a real debate, and obviouly do not know both sides of each issue the basis of debating. Repeated panels, interviews, and ads crudely insult one another, and waste voters time. That is not respecting others, period. In the end, the election process must be reviewed, and changed in 2012, and soon.